Units and Democracy

In Civ 2, Units stationed outside of cities in fortresses under a Republic do not cause unhappiness by citizens. I feel this is a very realistic concept and should be adapted to be used in republic and democracy government types in Civ 3. In Civ 2 however, Democracies do not have this luxury and units stationed in forts still cause dissent and eventually overthrow of government. In the US, military units are stationed all over the country in fortresses and people do not usually get upset at this, it's only when they go off to war (represented in the game by not being in a fortress). A good constraint would be requiring that the fortress be within a certain distance of a city occupied by that civ or an ally. And the dissent caused by one unit in Civ 2 is ridiculous, in a level 8 city under democracy, each unit away from the city would cause 1/4 of the people (2 heads) to revolt. Is that realistic?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Earthling7]

Civ2 improved greatly on Civ. In the original, units had to be stationed in their own city. That was a tedious task. Viva Civ2, if only for that.

It has been said elsewhere on this forum that Civ3 should recognise if you are fighting a war of aggression, or a war of defence. That would take care of this totally. A unit stationed outside your cities, not threatening another civ's cities should not be able to overthrow the government.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

Wow, powerful idea. I love it!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Slingshot]

Exactly!

Wars are unpopular when you lose. If a civ is losing lots of units, then the Democracy should complain loudly.

If a civ routes the enemy, the Democracy should be very much appeased.

It would add a new dimension to see combat as a double-edged sword!

[ivorgrubisic]

It's really great to be among you guys!! I see you all love the game as much as I do (and I don't generally like games-but civ is just something else). I only hope that someone out there is writing this stuff down. Viva CIV!

As for the units I totally agree that they should be able to stay in fortresses and not cause riots.

[Otso Vuorio]

OrangeSfwr,
You don't seem to know that the units outside a city must be WITHIN THREE SQUARES FROM THE CITY in a fortress, when you have Democracy or Republic as your goverment.
The units not stationed this way in Republic cause one unhappy citizen beyond the first unit not stationed this way. In Democracy all units not stationed within three squares from a friendly city in a fortress cause two unhappy citizen.
You should read the manual better (if you have one)

[Otso Vuorio]

Why you guys suggest "new" things, that already exist in civ2 !?!

Damn dude, that time of month?

What you said is what I'm saying should change! Plus certain units cause discontent no matter what. E.G. cruise missle, war ships, etc. The U.S. (sorry, i don't know much about Finland) has troops stationed in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Europe. Yet these cause no discontent in our government. I agree some people feel they serve no purpose there, but they do not wish to overthrow the government because of it. What I was saying about certain units (like a cruiser for example) they cause discontent once created. Nations today have entire navy's that cause no discontent. Especially when protecting a city. I do agree that Nuke's should cause discontent. But not two people per missle. That's just ridiculous.

Along with that, Offensive units that don't always end up stationed in a fortress (defending against an invading civ) For instance - an Armor attacking another Civ's calvary. It will cause discontent if it doesn't end up in the fortress even if it is within the cities radius! Get my point now?

If not, my main point is that units (under Republic and Democracy) within a civs radius should not recieve discontent, and units stationed in fortresses outside of a civs radius (under Republic and Democracy) should have only one discontent. Nukes cause discontent. Simple enough for ya?
------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited April 26, 2000).]

and I do have a manual...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Ubergeek]

Assuming that we'll see borders implemented in Civ3 (and that's a VERY safe assumption) then I don't think that your own military units should cause unrest if they're within your own borders, whether or not they're in a fortress. The fortress thing in Civ2 was an attempt to suggest borders in a game without borders, and it only half worked. As a rule, I think you should be able to move your units around at will and respond to potential threats without having to worry about leaving them in a fortress or a city.

And I very much like Slingshot's suggestion about wars only causing unrest when you're losing, or at least losing lots of units. A winning war is almost universally popular whether it's just or not.

------------------
Better living through tyranny

[Az]

I think that thing that makes democracies suffer when their units leave the house . all this issue should be "disbanded" and the new construction of the democracy-military problem should be built in a totally different manner : almost all goverments should experience a military discontent : but on different scales . Like when I lived in the Soviet Union = communism a very big protest movement rose around the afgan war ... so not only The Democracy suffers ... but another thing ; I hate seing the story below : I build in a production-rich city lotsa military , and then I go to war . when and if my army suffers a terible loss , and all the units are destroyed , the happiness returns ????!!!!!!!!!!! what the heck ? you killed our sons so we are very very glad ?
I think that unhappiness should be cause by units lost , not by units outta town ,

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by Ubergeek on 04-27-2000 10:59 AM The fortress thing in Civ2 was an attempt to suggest borders in a game without borders, and it only half worked.

Well put. I hadn't actually made that logical conclusion, but you're right.

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti on 04-27-2000 11:20 AM I think that unhappiness should be cause by units lost , not by units outta town

That makes sense too. Perhaps a small amount of unhappiness by troops out of your borders, but significantly more if they get killed.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 27, 2000).]

I agree. These are very sensible solutions. I also noticed that once all of your military was destroyed your happiness returns and asked myself the same questions. Hopefully this will all change with Civ 3. I'm really pushing for borders to because those fortresses are only good when they're on the edge of your outermost city's borders, otherwise they really don't serve much of a purpose as far as military defense goes...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Az]

borders in CIV 3 as a sure thing ? cool !

[Otso Vuorio]

Ok, sorry orangeSfwr. I think I got it wrong.
Because Finland isn't a member of NATO, we don't have troops all over the world when the crisis strike in Kosovo for example.
But because we are a part of UN, there are always finnish soldiers among the other UN soldiers in the dangerous areas after war.

Dalgetti, your idea of unit loses causing unhappines makes sense.
Borders are necessiest and we need 'em!

ps. And OrangeSfwr, I believe you have the manual, it was just a joke

[Az]

I think I've spotted a source for trouble in my idea : unhappiness caused by units lost must be ended after a turn after the war is over : but the problem is how do we describe major war ? how can we differenciate it from minor skirmishes on the border ? I thought here of one formula :

[(sum1+sum2)/2*[1/(minimum)]=N


N is the minimum number of units lost for turn for both sides combined.
sum1 is the sum of the city sizes of civ1
sum2 is the sum of the city sizes of civ2
and minimum is the distance between those civ's closest cities .

so if the number of units doesnt pass N it cant be called a full scale war .

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

quote: Originally posted by Otso Vuorio on 04-29-2000 03:40 AM Ok, sorry orangeSfwr. I think I got it wrong. Because Finland isn't a member of NATO, we don't have troops all over the world when the crisis strike in Kosovo for example. But because we are a part of UN, there are always finnish soldiers among the other UN soldiers in the dangerous areas after war. Dalgetti, your idea of unit loses causing unhappines makes sense. Borders are necessiest and we need 'em! ps. And OrangeSfwr, I believe you have the manual, it was just a joke

I know, everything I said was in fun to, I'm a very opinionated, yet joking kinda guy. I guess we have two different perspectives being that we're from two different parts of the world...



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Par4]

I like all the ideas I think troops within boards during non wartime shouldn't cause any unhappiness. For foreign cities(allied cities they are stationed at or newly captured cities) depending on how you civ feels about this unhappiness could be calibrated. Nuclear unhappiness could be calibrated by you civs feelings on nukes, ie someone nukes your civ no one is gonna like nukes but if a nuke ends a war then they are gonna be no tolerant of nukes.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

i agree with everything but the last part. I wouldn't neccessarily say that the US loves nuclear weapons. Many people wish to destroy them all (no pun or play on words intended). And I don't think Japan has any, but I would think a civ that has been nuked may feel the need for revenge...maybe the people in that civ my support it. I know the japanese would at the time of Hiroshima/Nagasaki if they had the knowledge of Nuclear Warfare.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Az]

I have decided to bring this thread back, so it won't fade away in the archives .
go on . don't forget it . post your replies !
fast !

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

[Zulu Elephant]

So how would the "Unit killed" unhappiness thing work?
How long would the unhappiness last when the unit was killed and would it fade over time?
Would it effect just that units home city or every city?

I can see two ways of implementing it
Firstly, everytime a unit is killed, a number of the citizens in its home city become unhappy (this could rise exponentially as mulitiple units from the same city are killed in one turn or a few turns close together)
This number of citizens would remain unhappy for a number of turns and then gradully decrease as people forget about the defeat.

Another idea would be that if a certain number or percentages of your units are killed in one (or a small number) or turns then every city (or every city over, say, population 5) gets one unhappy citizen - this number would increase if the death count continued or increased.

This way, people wouldn't revolt during a war unless it was going badly

[markusf]

last i heard the US was a republic not a Democracy......

quote: Originally posted by markusf on 05-11-2000 07:32 AM last i heard the US was a republic not a Democracy......

That's my view anyway, but to whom are you directing that? And what does it have to do with this thread?



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Par4]

As far as I know the United States breaks down like this.

Executive Branch- Republic not democratic republic, electoral college, people don't actually vote in the president the electoral college is there to represent the populations decision on a president.

Legislative Branch- Democratic republic, senators and reps voted in by people no electoral college(as far as I know) but they make decisions so a democratic republic.

Judical Branch- Republic picked by government elected by people

For all elective means its a republic but in reports and formal stuff better use democratic republic or was it constitutional republic ??

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

In another thread I made a comment saying that true democracy is like true communism, it doesn't exist on the Earth. And that all Communist govt's are dictatorships and all democracies are republics (by definition). I agree with what you said Par 4, but if the American's actually thought about the government, they'd realize that it's more like a republic than a democracy. But I have yet to hear from whoever made the comment. How does it relate to this thread?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Az]

I actually think that communism on the paper is the best goverment in any aspect . in a perfect world a classless and mutual caring society is the best solution for the World's problems . but , sadly enough , or maybe not , this is unacheivable because of one factor and one factor only : .human nature AKA greed AKA moral corruption. well . in a perfect world ... but , again , sadly enough , that's not the situation. also I cat agree with the think that in communism the science levels are Awful as written in CTP . that's not true ! because science in the Soviet Union was Thriving actually . so was the Production. but that's not the topic !


the topic is that the non-corruption thing existing in CIV is impossible . just like that ! impossible . argue with me . post replies . anything !

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

Dalgetti -

You are right. I never noticed how inaccurate the Communist system is for Civ 2 (never played CTP or SMAC) Production in Communist USSR was better than now when it is becoming democratic. They launched a sattelite, discovered Nuclear Warfare shortly after we did, and made many diplomatic accomplishments. If you consider that before 1917 Russia was Europe's sleeping Giant and nothing more, Communism under Stalin turned them into a major industrial power house. I think to be historically accurate we should make their food level the same or less than that of a monarchy b/c in USSR, Stalin caused the biggest European famine in history by trading his food to other nations for Machinery. I forget the exact number but a hell of a lot of people died from the famine. In China, Mao turned his country of rice farmers into steel producers, causing the Biggest man made famine in WORLD history. His plan was to sell the steel to USSR and European countries, but unfortunately the steel was so shoddy that no country would buy it. To the Chinese though, the famine was due to floods and droughts (Can't place blame on Mao, he's God in their eyes) The Communist government should be changed a little. What about this...

Grassland (w/o shield) - One shield, One food
w/irrigation - One shield, two food
w/road - One shield, one food, one trade
w/road + irrigation - one shield, two food, one trade

Grassland (w/Shield) - two shield, one food
W/Irrigation - two shield, two food
w/road - two shield, one food, one trade
w/road + irrigation - two shield, two food, one trade

Plains (w/out corn/buff) - one shield, one food
w/irrigation - one shield, two food
w/road - one shield, one food, one trade
w/road + irrigation - one shield, two food, one trade

Plains (with buff) - Three shield, one food
w/irrigation - three shield, two food
w/road - three shield, one food, one trade
w/road + irrigation - three shield, two food, one trade

Plains (with corn) - two shield, two food
w/irrigation - two shield, three food
w/road - two shield, two food, one trade
w/road + irrigation - two shield, three food, one trade

Swamp (no peat) - two shield, one food, one trade
w/road - two shield, one food, two trade

Swamp (with peat) - four shield, one food, one trade
w/road - four shield, one food, two trade

Forest (w/out silk or pheasant) - three shield, no food, no trade
w/road - three shield, no food, one trade

Forest (w/silk) - four shield, one trade
w/road - four shield, two trade

Forest (w/Pheasant) - two shield, two food
w/Road - two shield, two food, one trade


Hills (no coal/grape) - one shield
w/mining - three shield
w/road - one shield
w/road + mining - three shield

Hills (coal) - two shield
w/mining - four shield
w/road - two shield
w/road + mining - four shield

Hills (grape) - two shield, two food
w/mining - three shield, two food
w/road - two shield, two food, one trade
w/road + mining - three shield, two food, one trade

Mountain (no Gold) - two shield
w/mining - three shield
w/road - two shield
w/road + mining - three shield

Mountain (Gold) - two shield
w/mining - four shield
w/road - two shield, one trade
w/road + mining - four shield, one trade

I didn't get time to hit on a few terrain types, or farmland/railroad. But what do you think?

P.S. Thanx for keeping the thread alive


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 13, 2000).]

[Az]

Orangesfwr:
I guess we agree fully about the science thing i Communism .


about the food rates as you said.
That will be right in case a Universal food trade system exists.
thnx for supporting Communism .


keep the posts, ppl. it's the 1 of the most important threads .


P.S.And OrangeSfwr say what do you think about my post that says that in Communism there is also war discontent ?
I think that the only ones that don't suffer from it in any extent are the believers in Fundamentalism.


------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .
[This message has been edited by Dalgetti (edited May 13, 2000).]

[Par4]

Is Civ3 going to use true communism or stalinism communism. The USSR after stalin was a stalinist not communist. A communist country isn't necessarily going to be industrial or scientific.

Units in their civ shouldn't cause unhappiness. Stationed in foreign cities would cause unhappiness, 2x if the city they are in is in a warzone. Foreign are allied, protectorate, or newly captured enemy cities that aren't assimilated yet.

OT
1 thing I would want to see is a military base it could be a fort/airbase in one and have a range to give ground troops a bonus of some kind such as attack because of close logistics. They would also extend airplanes ranges/attack from the base, airplanes attack anything that comes in range and gives defense/offense bonuses to there units. Aircraft carriers would have a large area for planes to fly out of an back up troop/bomb cities giving you a reason to use them.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti on 05-13-2000 01:29 PM About the food rates as you said. That will be right in case a Universal food trade system exists. thanx for supporting Communism . keep the posts, ppl. it's the 1 of the most important threads . P.S.And OrangeSfwr say what do you think about my post that says that in Communism there is also war discontent ? I think that the only ones that don't suffer from it in any extent are the believers in Fundamentalism.

I agree with you. In fact I think there was a thread on Jihads and Fundamentalist wars. But yes, there should be discontent for Communism governments during war. (Although any who spoke out against it under Stalin would be sent to the goolags, or killed!)

I wouldn't neccesarily say that I 'support' Communism, because I don't. I do think that if Humans were perfect creatures it would work. But we all know that's not true Democracy in theory is actually the worst possible government one could possibly want! (Represents mob rule, laws constantly change, majority always rules over minority) But it seems to work best in the real world. Governments are weird like that.

I realize that the food system is going to change with Civ 3 (at least I hope) but using the Civ 2 system as a base for my example, what do you think?

Par4 - I think that the game should represent a Stalinism for "Communism". I mean yah, maybe a country could pull it off (true communism...but I highly doubt it. Plus, Mao and Stalin are a lot alike (and you could even argue that Castro in Cuba is as well) so I think it's safe to say that Communism is more like a dictatorship than the perfect classless society. If you read my post about the famines caused by Mao and Stalin you'll see my point and understand my model.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 13, 2000).]